Related papers: Reply to 'Comment on "Detuning effects in the one-…
In a recent Comment on our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett, Vol 76, p 3886 (1996); astro-ph/9605001) Evans (astro-ph/9606155) has raised some issues concerning the specific choice of the distribution function used in our calculation. He has also…
We present here our response to Dikpati et al.'s criticism of our recent solar dynamo model.
The correctness of the consistent histories analysis of weakly interacting probes, related to the path of a particle, is maintained against the criticisms in the Comment, and against the alternative approach described there, which receives…
This comment criticizes the above paper by Xiao-Yin Pan and Viraht Sahni. It is shown that their formulation of "Physical Current Density Functional Theory" is, at best, a garbled reformulation of the Vignale-Rasolt current-density…
We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].
This is a reply to an article with the same title in which Kirkpatrick claimed that the considerations I put forward some thirty years ago on quantum mixtures are incorrect. It is shown here that Kirkpatrick's reasoning is erroneous.
Samuely et al. (cond-mat/0503153) make the strong claim that our letter is 'contradicting several established experimental results'. As we will show below this is not justified and the claims from are based on a misinterpretation of our…
We show that the mistakes pointed out by Rana and Parashar [Phys. Rev. A 87, 016301 (2013)] do not invalidate the main conclusion of our work [Phys. Rev. A 86, 024302 (2012)]. We show that the errors affected only a particular application…
The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.
We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1501.06996 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.) on our Letter A. Rebenshtok, S. Denisov, P. H\"anggi, and E. Barkai, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf…
Bashkirov's comments (cond-mat/0410667) on the paper [S. Abe, Phys. Rev. E 66, 046134 (2002)] are all refuted. In addition, it is discussed that the Renyi entropy is irrelevant to generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics for…
Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further…
In a significant recent paper A. Edery undertakes a new study of light deflection in generalizations of general relativity (GR). He claims to prove that any metric-based gravitational theory that proposes to explain the flat rotation curves…
Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2086 (2001)
The experimental findings reported in our original paper [1] (arXiv:1211.2913) have been criticized in ref.[2] (arXiv:1606.00710). We believe that the arguments brought in ref. [2] are not correct and we show evidence for this.
We make comments on Gaidarzhy {\it et al.}'s [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 94, 030402 (2005)] letter.
Zhao et al. [Phys.Rev.B 58, 13824 (1998)] depicted several atomic structures of domain boundaries on a Si(111) surface and criticized the article by the present author and the co-workers. I will point out that their criticism is incorrect…
This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to…
We point out that T. Tanaka's recent criticism [quant-ph/0603075] of the results of J. Math. Phys. 43, 3944 (2002) [math-ph/0203005] is based on an assumption which was never made in the latter paper, namely that the diagonalizability of an…
This is a reply to the comment by A. W. Sandvik (cond-mat/0010433) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4204 (2000). We show that his data do not conflict with our data nor with our conclusions.